...translation:
With reference to the Decree of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life of July 11, 2013 (Prot. N. 52741/2012), Fr. Stefano M. Manelli, with the entire Institute of the Franciscans of the Immaculate united with him, obeys the Holy Father and trusts that with this obedience there may come even greater graces.

...translation:
With reference to the Decree of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life of July 11, 2013 (Prot. N. 52741/2012), Fr. Stefano M. Manelli, with the entire Institute of the Franciscans of the Immaculate united with him, obeys the Holy Father and trusts that with this obedience there may come even greater graces.

That certain populations or nations had set backs is reasonable, but the world population continues to grow. It grew even during the World Wars - because the rest of the world was multiplying more than the number who died in the Gulags and concentration camps and battles. Same with plagues, etc. At any rate, it is not a “proof,” but simply indicates that a relatively young human race is plausible, even probable, whereas posing a human race in the hundreds of thousands of years old does not match up with even a miniscule growth rate.

Thank you for the quote. The great St. Augustine! I love him. But the post was not about Scriptures, creation, etc. simply an indication, a mathematical one, that the human race is relatively young. You could use the equation to go backwards form $7 billion dollars to see how long it took yielding the same exponential interest. Not a “proof,” but certainly gives an indication that it’s just as rash to believe man existing for zillions of years. God bless...

The post actually uses a modest 0.45% growth rate. After WWII it reached as much as 2.3% and continues to be over 1%. So 0.45% medium is not presumptuous.

He wrote: for eight people to surpass 7 billion over a period of 4600 years the annual growth rate would only have to be 0.45% (yes, less than half a percent annual growth rate). 4600 years is realistic, then, for arriving at 7 billion people from 4 married couples.

While it's not a proof, it is certainly an indication that speaking of a relatively young human race is not ridiculous.

Post was about the human race, not the age of the earth. It is not a "proof," but does certainly indicate that speaking of a relatively young human race is not "stupid" and is at least no less credible than "believing" in the scientific conjectures of our day.

The post wasn't about the age of the earth. Regardless, one can "believe" theories that say the earth is 4.6 billion years old. It may well be. But scientists are fish in an aquarium and there observations of what is outside there aquarium are very limited.

this equation assumes that the original 8 people are still alive after 1481 years and that all eight of them, as well as every other human born, is having more babies every year theyre alive.

No, it's based on a growth rate. If there are 1000 people and 10 die but 15 are born, you have 1005 (that's what he means by a 0.5% growth rate). He presumes that people are dying every year - the population growth today is actually much larger - 1.4% - regardless of how many die, the new population each year is higher, and this exponentially.

If you read the post, he acknowledges DEATH in all of its forms - there is a deathrate. But the statistics are clear: the birthrate of man has consistently been higher, even in the years of war. Where's the proof that man existed for hundreds of thousands of years?

This post is not about Christianity. It’s about common sense. His equation is no different than what an investor would use for an interesting bearing investment. Each year it bears interest and that interest bears interest. Start with $8 and with a 0.5% yield of interest annually you arrive at $7 billion after 1481 years. Plug and chug.

He doesn’t deny that possibility that there were years of stagnancy or higher death rates. But the fact is that from 1900 to the present, even with World Wars, abortion, etc. the growth rate has always been consistently over 1% and we can presume that that has generally been the case even before the 1900’s.

His point is to be reckoned with: you simply can’t say that man dates back hundreds of thousands of years if, in general, population is simply growing.

Seems so clear, and yet everyone ignores it. The human race is relatively young. Before this section he talks about how time by its very nature must have a beginning and about the historicity of the flood. He's just scratching the service, to be sure. But enlightening and the links are excellent.

God and your country are not impressed by stupidity. Your family - well, poor them

I guess it's intelligent and patriotic to vote for whoever the GOP places on the ballet and to call anyone who votes for a candidate they deem better "stupid"?

At any rate Romney did not lose even a single state because of Goode, not even Virgina; he simply lost. Obama had almost 3 million more popular votes than Romney.

As for God, my country and my family, I don't consider you their spokesperson. While I share your disappointment in the election and reelection of B.O., I'm also disappointed in you and other fellow FReepers who refuse to respect my freedom and right to vote for a non GOP candidate. Is this "Free Republic" or "Pro Republican"?

No legend here. The woman's friend Kathleen (whom I know personally) actually came to Father Dean because they wanted to know if they needed to restore the book with the $20,000 in it. He has shared this on any number of occasions when speaking of the treasure we have in the Word of God.

At any rate, with the Bible we have much more than $100 on every page; we have the revelation of God Himself. And that's no legend. :-)

a) he is a Diocesan priest of Hartford who has been pontificating from Indiana for decades, so not answerable to anyone but himself,

b) he’s at Notre Dame, who welcomed Obama with a red carpet, and supports him,

c) we’ll see, but I think the recently appointed Bishop of Fort Wayne, IN, even though he is reputed to be orthodox, certainly will not be able to change McBrien and Notre Dame.

I think the Church’s only option (and I’ve thought this for a while) is that they have to take radical action (like they are doing with the feminist sisters) and just tell them “Shape up or ship out” - if you want to be Catholic you can’t be “katholic” (sounds the same, but it ain’t).